At least there is some response from Rove and his lawyer, so the story did not get squashed completely, yet:

Quote:

Lawyer denies Rove leaked Plame's name
NEW YORK, July 2 (UPI) -- A lawyer for Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove denied Saturday that Rove leaked the name of former CIA agent Valerie Plame to the press.

Political pundit Lawrence O'Donnell said at a Friday taping of the syndicated show "The McLaughlin Group" that Rove, President George W. Bush's top political adviser, would be revealed as the leaker in documents Time Inc. has agreed to turn over to a grand jury.

The panel is investigating the leak of Plame's name to various news outlets in 2003. It is a federal crime for a government employee to reveal the name of an undercover operative.

Newsweek reported on its Web site Saturday that e-mails surrendered by Time Inc. show Rove was one of Cooper's sources. Newsweek based its report on information from lawyers for witnesses "sympathetic to the White House."

Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, told Newsweek Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for a July 2003 article in which Cooper identified Plame. It was unclear, Newsweek said, what Rove told Cooper.

Luskin told the Washington Post Saturday that Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the Plame case, has assured him Rove is not a target of his investigation, Editor & Publisher reported.

When is Time turning the material over to the special investigator? I think this is smelling a little like the fake Bush National Guard papers. Bait the other side and get them to trip the trap, then reveal they have reacted to a bad source, and divert the story from the fact that Bush was AWOL and ditched the country when they sought him to fulfill his duty in Vietnam and got away with it because his Dad covered up, to one of bad sources. In this case Rove may only be someone who was there when the deed went down, and it was bigger fish who spilled the beans. Like maybe Cheney, who was associated with the CIA at one time, wasn't he? If it was Rove, who told him? What was his need to know? It would seem he was told merely to be able to leak the information. Anyway, does anyone know the timetable for the Time files to be given up? Jim

At least there is some response from Rove and his lawyer, so the story did not get squashed completely, yet:

Quote:

Lawyer denies Rove leaked Plame's name
NEW YORK, July 2 (UPI) -- A lawyer for Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove denied Saturday that Rove leaked the name of former CIA agent Valerie Plame to the press.

Political pundit Lawrence O'Donnell said at a Friday taping of the syndicated show "The McLaughlin Group" that Rove, President George W. Bush's top political adviser, would be revealed as the leaker in documents Time Inc. has agreed to turn over to a grand jury.

The panel is investigating the leak of Plame's name to various news outlets in 2003. It is a federal crime for a government employee to reveal the name of an undercover operative.

Newsweek reported on its Web site Saturday that e-mails surrendered by Time Inc. show Rove was one of Cooper's sources. Newsweek based its report on information from lawyers for witnesses "sympathetic to the White House."

Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, told Newsweek Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for a July 2003 article in which Cooper identified Plame. It was unclear, Newsweek said, what Rove told Cooper.

Luskin told the Washington Post Saturday that Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the Plame case, has assured him Rove is not a target of his investigation, Editor & Publisher reported.

Botnst - 7/4/2005 12:33 AM
Let not let lack of indictment stand in the way of conviction.

Interesting. Other than some probably cryptic notes on who the leaker is, there is probably little to actually point the finger firmly at anyone. And, then, supposing the reporter(s) come forward, it is a
"he said she said" argument, unless there are recordings somewhere.

Bot, give the prosecutor time, if there is a case to be made an indictment will follow. If there is no case to be made based on the evidence, there will be lots of innuendo. It would be interesting to see Karl Rove fall from grace due to innuendo. I can't think of someone I would rather see experience a fall from grace due to innuendo alone, even if it is off target this time, than Karl Rove. Jim

Botnst - 7/4/2005 12:33 AM
Let not let lack of indictment stand in the way of conviction.

Interesting. Other than some probably cryptic notes on who the leaker is, there is probably little to actually point the finger firmly at anyone. And, then, supposing the reporter(s) come forward, it is a
"he said she said" argument, unless there are recordings somewhere.

Bot, give the prosecutor time, if there is a case to be made an indictment will follow. If there is no case to be made based on the evidence, there will be lots of innuendo. It would be interesting to see Karl Rove fall from grace due to innuendo. I can't think of someone I would rather see experience a fall from grace due to innuendo alone, even if it is off target this time, than Karl Rove. Jim

My target was the folks above who have already convicted him.

If he's guilty, I believe he deserves jail time. Whomever 'he' maybe. When folks talke a job with the fed they sign documents agreeing to play by the rules. I don't like leadership thinking rules don't apply to them. F'rinstance, if I was messing around getting a BJ from an intern in my office, I'd get demoted or fired. That is my standard for everybody up the chain of command. If I don't get a free BJ, nobody gets a free BJ.

When folks sign-on to work with sensitive information, they sign even more documents and get briefings informing them of their duties and obligations. The person who signs cedes some of his/her rights of privacy and due process for the privilege and responsibility. But mostly the system works on honor, not legalities. We assume that people who want the job are willing to live-up to teh rules and serve as leadership role models for others in position of sensitivity or authority. So when some jackass breaks the rules of clandestine indenditities or leaks important documents or reveals methods of tracking terrorists' satphones' or steals them from secure facilities accidentally stuck in his socks and underwear, he/she should be burned--no matter how high and mighty. If they don't get fried in hot oil, it sends a signal to everybody else--why can't I do that?

I'm still waiting on my BJ from an intern, now that there's a precedent.

Nothing is ever free. Clinton is still paying. That was one intern and at least one BJ he would rather have missed.

I and a few others on the site will contribute to your "free BJ from an intern" fund if it helps you get over the Clinton intern BJ bit. What any other man does with his pecker as long as it is with another consenting adult, is not something I really care to know about or want to prevent. As for the rest of your post, it is right on. Let the big fish fry along with the peons when they conspire to compromise the security of America. Especially when they do it while in office. Jim

When I was much younger I worked for the gov and once had sex on my bosses couch. I didnt get fired and there was no congressional inquiry. My boss wasn't happy, but it didn't go beyond "don't screw broads on my couch"

While it was bad judgment, it didn't rate a hundred million dollar inquiry.

When I was much younger I worked for the gov and once had sex on my bosses couch. I didnt get fired and there was no congressional inquiry. My boss wasn't happy, but it didn't go beyond "don't screw broads on my couch"

While it was bad judgment, it didn't rate a hundred million dollar inquiry.

Never said it did. Don't want go go down that silly-assed argument.

It is much simpler: He got his, I want mine.

Jim Smith, I agree with your comments and appreciate the fund. At this point I'm less in need of a fund than I am in need of a willing intern. I'll need the fund for the lawyer. How much did we spend on the BJ lawyer? I need a ballpark figure for planning purposes.